Date: September 22 , 200 9

Subject: Conference Call with American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Nitric Acid NSPS Review

EPA Contract No. EP

- D

- 06

- 118; Work Assignment No. 3

- 22 RTI Project No. 0210426.00 3 .0 22

From: Melissa Icen hour

Roy Neulicht

To: Bill Neuffer

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243

- 02) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

A teleconference was held on August 1 1 , 2009 to discuss EPA’s review of the New Source Performance Standards (NS PS) for Nitric Acid plant s (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart G ). The agenda is attached. The meeting attendees included :

EPA Bill Neuffer, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Minerals Group Steve Fruh, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Minerals Group Tina Ndoh, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Program De sign Group Larry Sorrels, EPA, OAQPS, HEID, Air Benefits and Cost Group

Bill Grimley , EPA, OAQPS, AQAD, Measurement Technology Group Mausami Desai, EPA, OAR, Climate Change Division (via phone) Nathan Frank, EPA, Region V (via phone)

Amer ican Chemistry Council (ACC) [via phone] Lorraine Gershman, ACC John Dege, DuPont Bruce Darris, DuPont
Rob Schwar, Dow Jim Griffin, ACC
Russell Wozniak, Dow Desi Chari, Dow
David Emerson, Air ProductsEPA Support Contractors : Roy Neulicht, RTI Internatio nal
Melissa Icenhour, RTI International Jason Goldsmith, RTI International

Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to initiate communication with the American Chemistry Council ( AC C ) on activities related to the review of the Nitric Acid Manufacturing NSPS.

Discussion: A summary of the key items discussed during the meeting follows.

History of NSPS . Bill Neuffer gave a brief overview of the history of the NSPS.

The handout is attached. NSPS reviews occurred in 1979 and 1984. The emissions

standa rd did not change as a result of either of the reviews.

EPA will again be reviewing the NSPS, specifically the NO

x emissions limit , the opacity standard, continuous compliance, control technologies , and whether or not the manufacture of strong nitric ac id (>70%) should be regulated . EPA also is interested in collecting information on greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions , specifically, N 2 O.

The ACC participants asked why N 2 O emissions were being considered. Bill Neuffer explained that the current litigatio n from Sierra Club raises the issue of N 2 O emissions. Mr. Neuffer further explained that EPA will be gathering available

information on NO X and N 2 O as a part of the NSPS review process, but no decision has been made by EPA on whether or not to regulate N 2 O under the NSPS. Currently, the schedule is for proposal of a rule in fall of 2010 and promulgation a 1 year later.

ACC was concerned with possible conflicts between the monitoring requirements of the NSPS and the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule.

Economic Analysis. Larry Sorrels explained that an economic impact analysis will be done for this NSPS as is typically done by OAQPS. The analysis will include estimates of impacts on product prices and output, any impacts on small businesses, and impacts on imp orts and exports of affected products from implementing the NSPS. Such impacts are normally estimated for the fifth year after proposal of the NSPS, and the economic analysis uses the compliance costs for the NSPS as an input. He mentioned that the impac t on small businesses also is examined.Emissions T est M ethods

. The issue of whether Method 7E (instrumental

method) was an appropriate method for determining compliance with the NSPS was raised. Bill mentioned that only Methods 7 though 7D (wet chemi stry methods) are approved methods in the current NSPS

. Bill Grimley explained that there are two issues with the use of Method 7E: 1) how moisture in the sample is handled, and 2) the calibration procedures/gases used. The concern is potential for a bia s in measured

emissions result ing from the loss of NO 2 (which is highly soluble in water) during sample transport/conditioning. EPA recently has specif ied some sample conditioning procedures

for Method 7E when use d at nitric acid production facilities. E ssentially, one needs to verify all NO 2 is measured.

ACC Discussion

. ACC members noted that DuPont’s First Chemical facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi, has an upcoming NO X test. The test is performed annually as part of the title V permit for the pla nt. ACC asked for EPA input for the Mississippi stack test so that the results would be helpful in the NSPS review ; they requested EPA provide the recent specifications for Method 7 E use at nitric acid plants. Members also mentioned a plant in Texas that has a NO x control technology with upcoming plans for testing. ACC indicated that the data from any upcoming testing could be made available to EPA. Bill indicated that the data should be received by May/June of 2010 to be

included in the NSPS review.

A member asked if, according to the proposed GHF reporting rule, emissions testing would need to be conducted prior to January 2010 when the rule becomes

effective

. Mausami Desai indicated that testing would not need to be completed prior to January 2010 ; t esting could be conducted sometime during 2010 . T he results of the testing would then be used , along with 2010 production date, to calculate GHG

emissions.

One ACC member indicated that a stack test was not representative of emissions

due to changing process and/or control device conditions. He mentioned, for example, that catalyst aging can impact emissions. He indicated that Texas is re q uesting the use of CEMS. Another member asked whether there was an approved CEMS for measuring

N 2 O emissions. N athan Frank indicated he knew of a CEMS that was being used to

measure N 2 O emissions; it is a non

- dispersive infrared system (NDIR). An NDIR also

can be used to measure NO and NOx emissions.

Members asked about the status of the consent decree and why i t has been delayed. Bill Neuffer had no specific information but said he would contact the Office of General Council (OGC) for an update.

Members also indicated that there are no new nitric acid production lines being

built in the United States.Wr ap

- Up :

EPA indicated they wanted to keep lines of communication open with ACC and other representatives of the industry. The following action items were identified:

1. Working with ACC to refine the list of facilities and process units, as well as

each facility’s process design (e.g., low pressure, medium pressure, high

pressure, dual pressure) and emissions controls (e.g., SCR, NSCR)
characteristics;

2. Developing a list of data items that EPA would like to collect from industry

and trade associations and having a follow

- up call with ACC to discuss the

list ; 3. Obtaining the most recent CEMS data for NO

x emissions

4

. Obtaining avai lable stack test emissions data; and

5

. O b taining available N 2 O emissions data.ATTACHMENTS

Meeting Agenda

H istory of NSPS

### Agenda

8/11/09

– RTP, NC

EPA Meeting with American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Nitric Acid Plant NSPS Review

1

. Welcome and Introductions

2

. EPA Overview/ Background on New Source Performance Standard for Nitric

Acid Plants

3

. ACC Overvie w

– Discussion of the industry, members, and plant listing

4

. Discussion/ Wrap

- UpSubpart G NSPS Review

Notes for August 12 , 2009 Meeting with A C C

Why is EPA reviewing the NSPSs?

The EPA is required by the CAA (section 111(b)(1)(B)) to review and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS at least every 8 years.

In addition to the CAA requirement to review the NSPS periodically, EPA has received a citizen suit from Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project related to the nitric acid

NSPS which is a lso prompting review of the standards.

NSPS (40 CFR part 60) Promulgation date Previous changes to rule Nitric Acid (subpart G) June 14, 1974 (39 FR 20794) Changes dated October 6, 1975 [40 FR 46258], April 22, 1985 [50 FR 15894], and February 14, 19 89 [40
FR 6666]

NSPS Reviews were 1985

and 1989

What is the schedule for the NSPS reviews?

Preliminary draft of Consent Decree (6/18/09):

- Proposal of review in FR by November 15, 2010

- Promulgation of review in FR by November 15, 2011

The proposed /final FR notices must be one of the following:

- Determination that revision to the NSPS is unnecessary based on complete

review

- Revisions to the NSPS

What are some potential outcomes of the NSPS reviews?

Potential outcomes include one or more of the following:

- No changes

- Clarifying amendments

- Changes to emissions limits or other rule requirements

- Add emission limits for additional pollutants (i.e., N 2 O)

We currently have no inclination as to what will be changed. It will depend on what the

i nformation gathered reveals.

Now is the time to provide your ideas on potential amendments needed.Test Methods

Changes that increase stringency of the rule (if any) would apply only to new units installed following the NSPS review proposal date.

Wha t is the process?

1. Data gathering (emissions test data, site visits, permits, information from companies/trade groups/equipment vendors/states, state regulations, etc.) 2. Data analysis (compile data, analyze regulatory options, make recommendations)

3 . Develop FR proposal (preamble and rule amendments) 4. Receive, summarize, and review public comments on proposal 5. Review conclusions, conduct additional analyses needed, make recommendations 6. Develop final FR notice 7. Litigation (hopefully none)

W hat is the status of our data gathering efforts?

A list of nitric acid facilities has been compiled from various information sources such as EPA’s AIRS, ICIS, Region 5, etc.

We have obtained many title V permits from state websites. We will use permit d ata to identify any States with requirements more stringent than NSPS, equipment capable of meeting more stringent emission limits, etc.

Additional data needs include:

- For each facility subject to NSPS, the NO X emissions (in the same terms as the

NSPS limits) and the NO X abatement method.

- Emissions test data (e.g., for NO X and any other pollutants such as N 2 O) to evaluate the performance of current NO X abatement technologies and emerging NO X or N 2 O abatement technologies (if any).

There are approxim ately 60 facilities of which we are aware and resources are limited. Our goal is to get as much data from trade associations and states.